[Steinar H. Gunderson] > All three might eventually be truly broken, but you can bet that MD5 > will be the first to go. If you use SHA-256 today instead of MD5, you > probably buy yourself a few extra years, which you can use to smooth > out the transition to the next hash function when the world advances. You may laugh if you wish, but I think it's annoying to have to move to a hash function whose hexadecimal representation takes 64 bytes, which doesn't leave much room on an 80-column line to describe what the hash is hashing. Maybe by the time coreutils ships a sha256sum program, the world will have settled upon BASE64, which requires only 43 bytes.
Description: Digital signature